HB Tenant Lies to Benefits Office

Reply to the comment left by "Doreen Marr" at "02/06/2015 - 13:06":

Dear Doreen,

I wouldn't throw good money after bad. Chances are you will have nightmare afterwards because these people don't just walk away. I'm so happy legal aid is no longer available for these cases otherwise you would see yourself pouring money after money behind your solicitors and even if you were to win, you would find your defendants won't pay you back a single penny as they are already penniless. My tenants lied in their defence in order to claim legal aid, and the solicitor who defended their case was a greedy b* so he stood by that defence so that he could make a fortune. That was 6 years ago. They gave me a hard time purely by lying and we finally decided to settle the matter by writing off £14,000 rent arrears plus another £14,000 legal cost because we just didn't have a clue what the next lie was going to be about- Damp, mould, disrepair, personal injury, rodents, etc...they were all lies...in the end the Judge could see the common sense and he said to the defence to stop wasting his time as even in his house he has rodents and he can't stop them from coming in uninvited and therefore he could not see what these defence were on about?

Given the fact that your tenants have already left, I would simply write off these debts and claim the loss from my tax return.

I believe all landlords should stop feeling sorry for DSS tenants by giving them a home that they will never respect. Full stop.

The decision is yours.

Good Luck

Doreen, walk away from two weeks arrears as trying to claim, and usually failing, will only give you sleepless nights. By all means take the tenant to the County Court for the debt (money claim on line) just to make sure she has a CCJ as your parting gift to her, but do not expect to collect any money. Forget the arrears, which our beloved government has made nigh impossible to collect, and get on with the rest of your life.

Council tax is a different matter and of course the rules can be very complicated but in general the tenant is responsible whether or not in occupation as long as a tenancy of six months or more is in place. You tenancy should define the notice which the tenant needs to give, usually in writing, and if this notice has not been given then the tenancy continues until you are able to re-let the property.
Do not believe any LA clap trap about paying only on their main residence, oh that this were true then landlords would not have to pay on empty property. If a tenant has an Assured Shorthold Tenancy contract then he is liable for the council tax, if a DSS claimant than at a reduced rate, and if the property is empty then she is liable for 100% tax. If two or more tenancies exist then liability is on all the properties.
The relevant law is contained section 6 (Persons Liable to Pay Council Tax) of the Local Authority Finance Act 1992 which defines who is liable to pay the Council Tax.
It can be very complicated so if you wish to discuss please contact me through Property118.

Reply to the comment left by "David Price" at "03/06/2015 - 10:07":

Going slightly off topic onto the issue of council tax. What I can't get my head around is why the LA give Contractual Periodic Tenancies to their tenants (meaning it's periodic from the very start), which obviously doesn't provide security of tenure for six months or more, yet they don't have a problem making the tenants pay their council tax (even if they no longer use the property as their primary residence)! One rule for one...

Thank you Sunny, David and Luke for the advice. My gut feel is the same as you all suggest, forget the hassle and walk away, but this leaves both the tenant and Hyndburn Council supporting lies, and bad ethics, What it says about the Council is that they are openly supporting the tenants to lie. The Council clearly know when they receive a copy of the tenancy that the tenant has a contractual obligation to give 4 weeks notice to the landlord. I have evidence of when that notice was given, which thus equates to date the tenants have accountability. But, because the tenant has told them differently, they accept it, but the tenant has noevidence just his word. It is all so wrong, how we as a nation support this dreadful ethics is truly beyond my comprehension this really breeds bad ethics, it means the tenant runs rampage over his responsibilities and leaves everyone frustrated, except himself, he is laughing all the way to the bank and we tax payers pay these local council wages can see that what they are supporting is crazy ethics, total madness, how do the Council think they are educating these tenants? They are condoning fraudulent behaviour.

Yesterday, Peter advised me to report it as a Criminal offence, and I have been turning this over in my mind to see how this sits. Again thus uses our tax resource to try to put an end to this practice.

Hi Doreen

As a landlord who regularly lets to HB tenants, in family homes and also in HMOs, I am well aware of this situation and have had it occur regularly. Residents often abandon properties and HB continues in payment, then at a later date the Council's HB Dept will say the tenant moved out 2 months ago and thus an overpayment occurred and they send the landlord an invoice for that overpayment. It is very unfair on the landlord as they had no idea the resident had moved out, but as has already been stated by others, that is what the councils do, "welcome to the world of letting to DSS tenants".

When this happens to me, I appeal against the HB decision on the basis that the person IS still occupying the property, and that the other (new) property is in fact their "second home". I use the legal definitions of occupation as contained in the Protection from Eviction Act to show that "in law" the person is still legally occupying the property. It then follows, that if they have taken on another property, then that other property is their second home and even if they are spending some time there it does not mean that they have ceased occupying the first property, as people are allowed to "live" in holiday homes / second homes / caravans / hotels / hospital / prison / drug rehab / DV refuge, etc, etc, while still occupying a property and receiving Housing Benefit for it. - The use of other housing law, logic, and examples, does seem to work as over the years I have had thousands of pounds of HB invoices written off or deemed "unrecoverable".

In relation to recovering the debt from the tenants, it will cost you lots of money to get the CCJ against them, and they won't care. Even after you have got the CCJ against them, there is currently no effective means of recovering the debt unless the person is employed or has assets that can be seized, e.g. a car. What would be helpful would be if there was a change in the law that allowed landlords to recover the debt from a person's welfare benefits at source, e.g. the court orders the DWP to deduct x amount from the person's benefits JSA/ESA each week and pay it to the landlord until the debt is cleared.

Hi Robert

Thank you so much for informing me of how you deal with this type of situation, you clearly have had much experience in this area! Thank gid this is the first time for me!

I think I will take your advice and not waste my time, as this guy is self employed, but his partner claims HB, well it's something like that, although he does have a van that he uses for his work. I am wondering if it is worth making the effort to claim the money back from the Council, using your legal terminology, have you ever been successful in getting payment out of the Council, after the tenants have departed. Do you know if it is a criminal offence for the tenants to tell the Council lies, in that their tenancy had ended when it had not ended. I still have all the evident on my phone of when the tenant first notified me that they would be moving.

I feel like rattling someone's cage..... lol....like going to the police to report the tenants, that would mean they would have to investigate...... lol.... I know this would make so much extra work for the police, but the Councils with the methods they use, drive enormous amounts of work on the Courts / landlords by making tenants get into extra debt, that many would prefer not to do, but the Council do not allow the tenants to move out, they use the words that "they (the tenant) have made themselves homeless by moving out ", and thus the Council won't help them. Is this world mad or what, Our governments systems make it acceptable for tenants to have a CCJ, as their methods of use, insisting tenants stay in the home until the Court order arrives, when really the tenant would prefer to be rehoused immediately when they inform the Council that they have problems and can no longer make their rent payments, the Council are just trying to buy themselves time, but in their efforts to do that, they cause tremendous stress on the Court system, and also on landlords. The sensible way is to address the problem when it arises. I know the answer the Council use, is that there is not sufficient homes, but the problem/outcome is exactly the same whether they action it immediately or in 3 months times. The Council system is deluded! ...! We should not forget how the system puts so much anxiety /stress on tenants, no wonder the NHS is under stress, the Council/Government systems cause it, and they are promoting CCJ's

Sorry Robert for that last piece of info, but I thought this info may be of interest help to other readers.

Robert, If you could please let me know if you gave been successful in getting payments from the Council, after the tenant has departed. I don't mean the credit of their invoice, I mean, additional payments over and above those invoices / appeals which you have been successful in getting turned over.

Maybe all this work just keeps everyone in jobs...lol .... I call it job creation!

Thanks again Robert for the advice and information.

Doreen

I had my DSS tenants hang on till the bailiffs came which were not a couple of big hefty blokes as might be expected but a solitary woman! Why a woman? Because no one is going to attack her, that's why! Big hefty bailiffs are history!

Reply to the comment left by "Doreen Marr" at "06/06/2015 - 15:21":

Hi Doreen

If his van is used for work purposes then the bailiffs would not seize it anyway (unless they were High Court Enforcement Officers, but then the debt has to be over £600). Hence the need for a new enforcement method that is effective against former tenants who are on welfare benefits.

Yes, I have had the Council pay for the period of occupancy after they had previously stopped the payment for this reason, but each Council (and even Officers within the councils) interpret the law differently so some would accept the argument and pay up, while others would still refuse to pay. If you feel it is worth your time and effort to pursue this then do so, but I cannot guarantee success, all I can say is that I've been successful with this combination of legal definitions, logical persuasive argument, and examples of similar situations.

As for whether it is a criminal offence for the tenants to lie........... I may be wrong but I believe that it would be fraud if they told the lie in order to qualify for something, but it is not a criminal offence if they lie to stop getting something they were entitled to. Either way, I think the police would not do anything about it as they can't be bothered with such matters between landlord and tenant, though they may take an interest if it was the local Council alleging fraud. Also, there is no way to "prove" to the criminal standard (beyond reasonable doubt), that the tenants did not move out on that date, as their subjective interpretation of "moved out" may be different from the legal interpretation of "moved out" or "occupation", bearing in mind the various forms of "moved out" I've already mentioned (prison, hospital, holiday, staying with relatives, etc, etc).

Thanks Robert for further commenting.

When I spoken with the lady at the Council she was very helpful in that she explained how the tenant would have completed a Council document which not only asks when they moved out/in, but it also asks the tenant when his tenancy came to end, which she confirmed the tenant had lied. I am wondering if I write to the Council and quote the facts I have, making reference to it being fraud to say the tenancy had ended, so they could begin claiming benefit from their new tenancy, this may. produce a good result.
It is this document that would support the false information.

If the value of the debt needs to be greater than £600, then this would restrict me in the action I would take, so thank you for that information.

I agree with you that the only way to end and resolve all this effort, would be for the Government to allow CCJs and other forms of Orders to be deducted from the tenants benefit, otherwise the tenant is just laughing at all the effort everyone from Landlord, Council, and Court put in all of which fails when the order cannot be sustained and put into effect.

Thanks again Robert for the advice,

Kind regards.

Don't think the government are that bothered as it puts more money in the tenants pocket which shuts them up, prevents anarchy!